What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday
and its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is
also excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and
bitterness. But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1%
sugar (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible
and non-edible?

I got the package of 30 tiny samples and they are the perfect amount of
super intense chocolate. I dont recommend it for the faint of heart
though. Its so close to baking chocolate.

k

at Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:58:22 GMT in <2itod.133745$HA.82392@attbi_s01>,
(Karstens Rage) wrote :

>What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday
>and its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is
>also excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and
>bitterness. But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1%
>sugar (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible
>and non-edible?

No, that's the difference between good and bad chocolate. If an unsweetened
baking chocolate tastes inedible, that means it *is* inedible, in other
words, you shouldn't use it for baking, much less eating. Part of the
problem is that a lot of peoples' familiarity with "baking" chocolate is
limited to Baker's Chocolate (the brand) which is quite simply abominable
chocolate in every way. As I've said earlier, I wouldn't feed Baker's
chocolate to my worst enemy's dog. It's that bad.

Good-quality unsweetened chocolates are all good if, as you imply,
challenging eaten straight, and there are several others besides Noir
Infini. Domori makes 2: 100% and Puro: I think the 100% is slightly better.
Bonnat and Slitti also make good unsweetened chocolates. And in addition to
those, most of the big quality chocolate manufacturers also make pretty
good 100% chocolates: Valrhona, Ghirardelli, Callebaut, etc. I've listed
the chocolates roughly in order of quality, first to last. I personally
think Noir Infini is indeed easily the best, but again, the others are good
and offer stylistic choices if you want to experiment. You can use Noir
Infini for baking and in fact I recommend it as the chocolate of choice for
the times when you need to create the very best chocolate desserts. It's
rather expensive for general-purpose use, however: in that application
Callebaut and Ghirardelli are more economical and practical.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

at Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:58:22 GMT in <2itod.133745$HA.82392@attbi_s01>,
(Karstens Rage) wrote :

>What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday
>and its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is
>also excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and
>bitterness. But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1%
>sugar (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible
>and non-edible?

No, that's the difference between good and bad chocolate. If an unsweetened
baking chocolate tastes inedible, that means it *is* inedible, in other
words, you shouldn't use it for baking, much less eating. Part of the
problem is that a lot of peoples' familiarity with "baking" chocolate is
limited to Baker's Chocolate (the brand) which is quite simply abominable
chocolate in every way. As I've said earlier, I wouldn't feed Baker's
chocolate to my worst enemy's dog. It's that bad.

Good-quality unsweetened chocolates are all good if, as you imply,
challenging eaten straight, and there are several others besides Noir
Infini. Domori makes 2: 100% and Puro: I think the 100% is slightly better.
Bonnat and Slitti also make good unsweetened chocolates. And in addition to
those, most of the big quality chocolate manufacturers also make pretty
good 100% chocolates: Valrhona, Ghirardelli, Callebaut, etc. I've listed
the chocolates roughly in order of quality, first to last. I personally
think Noir Infini is indeed easily the best, but again, the others are good
and offer stylistic choices if you want to experiment. You can use Noir
Infini for baking and in fact I recommend it as the chocolate of choice for
the times when you need to create the very best chocolate desserts. It's
rather expensive for general-purpose use, however: in that application
Callebaut and Ghirardelli are more economical and practical.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:58:22 GMT, Karstens Rage >
wrote:

>I got the package of 30 tiny samples and they are the perfect amount of
>super intense chocolate. I dont recommend it for the faint of heart
>though.

Don't I know it. I made curls with it (using a vegetable peeler) and
put it on top of a Tiramisu I made instead of cocoa powder -
absolutely heavenly!

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~

Cluizel's 99% is one of the best. As Alex mentioned, Domori's 100% is
excellent and, unlike many of the 100% eating chocolates, is actually both
edible and enjoyable.

My own preference is for at most 90% cocoa mass, since a little sugar really
makes the chocolate. Even 70% is still considered more "health food" than
candy, as evidenced by its glycemic index.

Geoff

"Karstens Rage" > wrote in message
news:2itod.133745$HA.82392@attbi_s01...
> What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday and
> its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is also
> excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and bitterness.
> But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1% sugar
> (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible and
> non-edible?
>
> I got the package of 30 tiny samples and they are the perfect amount of
> super intense chocolate. I dont recommend it for the faint of heart
> though. Its so close to baking chocolate.

Cluizel's 99% is one of the best. As Alex mentioned, Domori's 100% is
excellent and, unlike many of the 100% eating chocolates, is actually both
edible and enjoyable.

My own preference is for at most 90% cocoa mass, since a little sugar really
makes the chocolate. Even 70% is still considered more "health food" than
candy, as evidenced by its glycemic index.

Geoff

"Karstens Rage" > wrote in message
news:2itod.133745$HA.82392@attbi_s01...
> What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday and
> its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is also
> excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and bitterness.
> But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1% sugar
> (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible and
> non-edible?
>
> I got the package of 30 tiny samples and they are the perfect amount of
> super intense chocolate. I dont recommend it for the faint of heart
> though. Its so close to baking chocolate.

Cluizel's 99% is one of the best. As Alex mentioned, Domori's 100% is
excellent and, unlike many of the 100% eating chocolates, is actually both
edible and enjoyable.

My own preference is for at most 90% cocoa mass, since a little sugar really
makes the chocolate. Even 70% is still considered more "health food" than
candy, as evidenced by its glycemic index.

Geoff

"Karstens Rage" > wrote in message
news:2itod.133745$HA.82392@attbi_s01...
> What is the deal with this chocolate? I just got some for my birthday and
> its got all the textural qualities of very good chocolate. It is also
> excellent in flavor and blows me away with its intensity and bitterness.
> But is this just very high quality baking chocolate with 1% sugar
> (whatever that means) and that is the difference between edible and
> non-edible?
>
> I got the package of 30 tiny samples and they are the perfect amount of
> super intense chocolate. I dont recommend it for the faint of heart
> though. Its so close to baking chocolate.